|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that you pointed out that a caster casting a cantrip does poor damage compared to a martial sort of emphasizes the point that casters are underwhelming.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Being sub-par to martials when they don't use spells, and superior to them when they do has always been casters whole schtick. The differences are smaller this edition (ie: comparatively better when not using spells, and worse when using them as opposed to PF1), but they're still there.
Sure they can do stuff every round, but every round they aren't casting, they are subpar to a martial. And the number of spell slots they have are much reduced and the effect of 90% of the spells in the playtest don't have more effect on combat than a martial attacking.
That last bit is actually deeply untrue. Many spells are quite a bit more effective than even a full round of attacks from a martial. Baleful Polymorph can casually take people out more or less completely in one turn, for example, and debuff effects are very exceedingly powerful given the tight math.
Given the inordinately high Saves in the playtest, they do much better on minions than on main villains, but minions also came up quite a lot in Doomsday Dawn, and the Saves being so high on monsters is one of those areas they've made very clear will be changed.
We will see what the final product is, but optimizers with the current playtest rules wouldn't play a pure caster.
I'm not at all sure I agree. Casters aren't as overpowered as in PF1, but they remain quite potent in some ways. Their biggest obstacle to effectiveness was Saves being so high, which once again I'll note is something that's definitely and unequivocally being changed.
The standout MVP of Chapter 5 of Doomsday Dawn in my game was the Evoker Wizard, who did over 200 damage in a turn one time with two uses of Disintegrate...among several other things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it did, you have approximately half the spells you had, and they are worse to boot (yes, they are buffing them, but you'll never convince me they'll get back to PF1 levels), if nothing because of need for heightening. You also have less in wands (or not at all considering latest news). Cantrips are just not enough to make up for the loss from PF1. The only thing that now lasts longer is hp healing for no-magic parties which can potentially go indefinitely thanks to Treat Wounds (since magic ones got by with wands of CLW).As MaxAstro notes, it depends on how you play. Generally speaking, you need to cast spells less often in PF2 than PF1, since your cantrip and other non-spell options are comparatively superior (both because the spells are less powerful and because the cantrips and other options are more so).
If you cast a spell every round, yes, you'll run out quicker...but that's a terrible and suboptimal tactical choice, rather than something the system encourages.
Spellcasters are certainly less powerful than in PF1, but how powerful you are and how long you can go between rests are very different things and, played at all optimally, PF2 casters can go significantly longer while still contributing every combat round.
So, if I do something that's suboptimal and boring, I'll last longer? I mean I usually play magic-martials, but if I want to play the casting-caster it's not because I want to cast cantrips all day long.
So, if I do something that's suboptimal and boring, I'll last longer? I mean I usually play magic-martials, but if I want to play the casting-caster it's not because I want to cast cantrips all day long.
Doing something suboptimal and boring but lasting longer was the entire martial niche in PF1e. Introducing a tiny bit of that to casters isn't such a bad thing, especially if the alternative is being able to do something overpowered all the time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It still bothers the eff outta me when people base the equality of classes solely on DPS.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I do something that's suboptimal and boring, I'll last longer? I mean I usually play magic-martials, but if I want to play the casting-caster it's not because I want to cast cantrips all day long.
Let's take a look at this from a game design perspective:
1) Spells are limited in uses per day, while most martial abilities are not.
2) Given that, spells need to be more powerful than typical martial abilities to justify their limited uses
3) However, this dynamic then causes what I'll call "the Nova Problem". The Nova Problem is this: If a caster has enough spells to cast a spell every round of combat, then for that combat everything they do is more powerful than the martial characters. If the caster has enough spells that they don't have to worry about running out until the party rests, then they are effectively more powerful than the martial characters all the time.
4) The Nova Problem really only has two solutions: Either spells must not be meaningfully more powerful than martial abilities, or casters must have few enough spells per day that they have to not use spells on some rounds, so that there are rounds of combat in which the martials are more effective than the caster to balance out the rounds in which the reverse is true.
PF2e seems to be heading in the direction of the second solution, because they would like to keep spells more powerful than martial abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't see why anyone cares how much, if any, impact casters (or rogues) have in combat as it seems at best tangential to their stated roles and counterproductive in a class-based system anyway.
If some classes are better in combat than others, the basis for game balance doesn't exist. How can Paizo design encounters for their campaigns when they don't know if the players are going to bring 'combat characters' or not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nova
The Nova problem is never going to go away as long as there are no limits on how often you can cast spells in a single combat.
It then forces the "early rest" mechanics that we also hear people talk about (systemic from this).
Instead of reducing the overall amount of spells, what they should have done is put a cap on total Level spells cast in a single minute round (some kind of "magical overload" mechanic).
Outside the above, the novaing is still going to be something the GM has to manage through forced long adventuring days or otherwise some other metric.
Side Tangent on Magic Overload mechanic:
This would actually be a way to differentiate the Sorcerer and the Wizard, by allowing the Sorcerer not only the ability to cast more spells per day, but to cast more spells in a single combat than a Wizard.
Going on "magic overload" could be as simple as costing you additional slots, weakening yourself via a condition, or even just direct damage.
If they truly wanted to define a way to put Martials and Casters on the same par, they need to minimize the "all day vs. til I run out" parity.
Trying to balance things on that spectrum just puts more pressure on other aspects (the rest problem).
I also think, thematically, it makes a lot of sense. Magic being potent, dangerous, and draining is sort of the point.
You can then even build whole mechanics around this new "Magical Overload Cap", where Elves get a bonus level with a selected Ancestry Trait.
Could be something as small as Caster Level X 2 (effectively two 10 level spells in a combat at 20th level and two 1st level spells in a combat at 1st level).
That means an 8th level caster can cast two 4th level spells in a single combat, four 2nd level spells in a single combat, one heightened 4th level spell and four 1st level spells, etc.
Not really that different from what the expected model would be, and it allows for going over in the case of taking on the "downsides" for Magical Overload, where further casts after Overloaded requires a Caster Level check.
Personally, I don't think it's a lot of extra book keeping (since it only comes up in edge cases where you try to overload yourself) but even in the cases where it does come up it's thematically significant (BBEG and you have to Overload? Now it's a tactical choice and a HUGE deal to choose to cast X)
Almost certainly not going to happen at this point, but it's fun to ponder.
If the priority for you is that your blaster needs to have DPS like a marshal, and not be limited by slots, ok. Then my suggestion is talk to your GM about re-fluffing a ranged marshal class as a your new blaster class. You can go to the local blaster store that the GM can make available to you, and pick up blasting spell components that do Arrow or Crossbow, or other similar ranged damage at the given ranges. You could even ask for some options that might do fire damage, or electric damage or such, perhaps for extra cost to reflect the increased flexibility granted targeting weaknesses. And viola, you now have your magical blaster that does DPS the same as a marshal.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It still bothers the eff outta me when people base the equality of classes solely on DPS.
When all the non-combat spells got nerfed into oblivion, what other comparison is there?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic overload isn't an unreasonable concept for means of limiting things. Something that makes that concept more complicated is that different spells have different impact on the game in different ways.
For instance, being able to do 1d4 damage every six seconds or minute, with no daily limit or such isn't necessarily that big of a narrative impact. Interesting enough, it might become a problem if it bypassed hardness, and become a means to easily destroy things in a building scale. However, more specifically being able to cure 1d4 HP every 6 seconds, or minute could probably fully heal a whole small army every hour. Damage is often considered kind of ephemeral, but healing is considered a sort of permanent/lasting impact. I think part of it comes from the idea that damaging things is easy, making things right, is not so. This might not be quite as broken, since the current implementation of treat wounds, but it still has a random chance of being stopped.
So, with current casting, they have simply divided it into two resource pools. A daily pool, and an infinite one. Your cantrips prepared list gives you your infinite one, and your spell slots give you your daily ones.
With your suggestion, you'd need spells to specify how long they bolster/use up your casting resources. Cantrip equivalents would be potentially just til next round, or until their spell effect is over/you would be able to cast it again. I'd think, most spells would hold their resources during their duration, if not some certain amount past it. Also, do people always start topped off in their casting, or do they need to build up their power as they enter their encounter. [does a caster need to wait a round or more to get to where they can cast their strongest level spells]
In a way this gets you back to 'at-will', 'encounter', and 'daily' abilities, which some might like, and others might loathe. Alternately, if you are counting rounds, it is an even more complicated 'system' people have to track.
But also keep in mind, If you make a summon spell, that can be cast once per encounter that can last the duration of the encounter, that can do a level of damage of an similar level martial, you have re-created the entire imbalance problem, invalidating the role of the fighter. By making a caster able to cast x spells per encounter, that means each of those individual spells they cast should only be comparable to what a martial or rogue character could for instance preform in an encounter divided by x. That means you would see the bigger spells needing to do less damage, than when the balancing assumption was that the spells would be limited by day, not encounter.
Magic Overload isn't a horrible idea for a potential limitation, though, it certainly could be utilized if it worked with everything. If Adepts were a type of caster, who channeled some certain form of energy. While probably a prepared caster of sorts, they don't recover their energies all at once after a nights rest, but instead are more limited at a particular moment, but refresh more quickly from many spells.
The biggest issue would be finding a way to rule how long it would take for a spell cast to return its consumed resources to the caster. I also expect some spells, will need to be pushed to 'a day' and that would eliminate the resources too quickly, meaning there would need to be a secondary limiting pool to potentially restore resources that were spent on the daily resources so that after casting a daily spell, they can still cast another spell in the next encounter, for instance. It seems like it would be a really pretty complicated thing to balance to make it so it wasn't just vastly overpowered compared to existing prepared or spontaneous casters, for instance.
For instance, being able to cast Alarm more than once a day isn't a big concern to me. But being able to cast a first level spell like True Strike in every combat encounter in a day would be a really significant change. Being able to cast an animal form as many times in exploration mode during a day, and potentially each encounter during that day, seems like it could be problematic. Being able to cast Mending 16 times in a day isn't necessarily earth shattering, but could still generate a rather potent narrative situation if someone chose to capitalize on it, especially on the 3rd level version of it.
All that said, it seems like it would be hard to make it work with the rest of the magic system as it is currently formed. It seems like it would require potentially significant vetting of each spell to make sure nothing gets to significantly broken by it. And if you do find something of concern, what are your tools to keep it under control?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It still bothers the eff outta me when people base the equality of classes solely on DPS.When all the non-combat spells got nerfed into oblivion, what other comparison is there?
There's more to do in a combat than raw DPS. Casters excel at this.
But really, I'm wondering about what is the point of this thread.
What I'm reading is: "Give casters at least the same damage output of martials, without taking from them the power of battlefield control/out of combat problem solving, without imparing them with limited spell slots of course, or they will have to rest too often".
Magic overload isn't an unreasonable concept for means of limiting things. Something that makes that concept more complicated is that different spells have different impact on the game in different ways.
That's where it would go to far. All spells only have the impact as far as their Spell Level and in the span of a 1 minute interval.
This very basic and ubiquitous concept now makes all spells that are OOC (Scrying, Suggestion, etc) unaffected (as they should be), and all spells that can be cast in quick succession (in combat spells) subject.
To go outside that is to over complicate an otherwise simple solution to the nova problem. There is also little to no need to apply arbitrary restrictions to certain spells.
"going nova" is rarely a problem in the non combat settings, it is when someone spends all of their spells in one combat that there is issues. Even outside of combat, the "1 minute interval" would still apply, but given that OOC rarely has issues with waiting, I don't see an issue.
So, with current casting, they have simply divided it into two resource pools. A daily pool, and an infinite one. Your cantrips prepared list gives you your infinite one, and your spell slots give you your daily ones.
That doesn't solve the problem though, because one of the pools can still be Nova'd and the other pool is significantly weaker.
Again this is meant to cause the Caster to choose not to Nova or be more tactical about when to use Cantrips or when to Overload themselves because it is necessary.
With your suggestion, you'd need spells to specify how long they bolster/use up your casting resources.
No you classify it once as a global limiter
Magical Overload
You cannot cast more than 2 X Caster Level in Spell levels in a single 1 minute interval, if you do, you are subject to a Caster Level check or become Overloaded 1. If you are already Overloaded, your Overloaded progresses a step
Then you have Overloaded:
Overloaded
You must make Caster Level checks to continue to cast spells, with the DC being 15 + Spell Level + Overloaded Tier. If you fail, you lose the spell.
The above is off the cuff, but it gets the general limitation across.
I don't know how we landed so far into this complicated territory but the mechanic literally would be as simple as the above. Anything else is honestly unnecessary and serves a different purpose than what was intended (nova prevention).
In the case of raising your "nova cap", classes could simply alleviate that:
- Cantrips don't count towards the cap
- Heal for clerics doesn't count towards the cap
- Summon Nature's Ally for druids doesn't count towards cap
Or offer abilities/feats that reduce caps for certain spells:
- Fire Focused Sorcerer can cast spells with the Fire descriptor as Spell level - 1 for their cap
But the main focus would be, not reducing daily spell usage, while mitigating combat nova usage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NovaThe Nova problem is never going to go away as long as there are no limits on how often you can cast spells in a single combat.
It then forces the "early rest" mechanics that we also hear people talk about (systemic from this).
Instead of reducing the overall amount of spells, what they should have done is put a cap on total Level spells cast in a single minute round (some kind of "magical overload" mechanic).
Outside the above, the novaing is still going to be something the GM has to manage through forced long adventuring days or otherwise some other metric.
The "early rest" issue is another side of the same coin, but there are things you can do to discourage early rests and in many adventures casters can't count on always being able to rest on command.
I think limits on spells in a single combat is janky, and more important it exposes the inner workings of the game design in a way people aren't going to like. Paizo needs to find a delicate point where they are encouraging casters to conserve their spells without telling casters that the game mechanics are arbitrarily forcing them to conserve their spells.
Paizo also seems to be approaching it from the other side as well by making cantrips more viable. Part of the reason casters feel the need to nova is because casters in 1e are pretty useless whenever they are not casting. By giving casters something viable to do when they are not dropping their big spells you can make people more comfortable with "down" turns.
This is one of the reasons Witch is one of my favorite 1e casters - witches have lots of great things to do with hexes when they are not casting spells, and as a result I never felt bad when I went a few turns without casting. I think Focus powers can do a lot here, too; I hope every caster has decent Focus powers, including ideally some at-will abilities.
The "early rest" issue is another side of the same coin, but there are things you can do to discourage early rests and in many adventures casters can't count on always being able to rest on command.
I mention that. The GM essentially has to deal with it by forcing long adventuring days or via other methods. Not exactly fun to shoehorn that because of one player's inability to manage properly.
I think limits on spells in a single combat is janky, and more important it exposes the inner workings of the game design in a way people aren't going to like. Paizo needs to find a delicate point where they are encouraging casters to conserve their spells without telling casters that the game mechanics are arbitrarily forcing them to conserve their spells.
I mean, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if your only comment is that it's "janky" without reasonable issues with it (again it really only comes up when someone Novas), then I'll stick to my guns. It's not "janky" anymore than any other limiting mechanic in the game is "janky" (like spell slots or pools).
Paizo also seems to be approaching it from the other side as well by making cantrips more viable.
This does not solve the Nova problem, for various reasons pointed out in this thread though. It doesn't address the "all day vs. resource limited" disparity of casters to martial.
Cantrips and regular slots exacerbate the issue.
Powers that fall outside this (Witches basically just got overpowered Cantrips in PF1) are not being considered here. We're talking about how to limit someone with limited resources so they can't spend them all in a single combat.
Feel free to read my follow up post where I outline the mechanic with a little more teeth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm... that's a valid perspective, Bluenose, and certainly I simplified the matter. The cost of acquiring a spell vs the cost of acquiring a new martial ability IS another part of the equation.
However, that's more of a holistic issue - especially one tied to character creation - and I feel has less to do with round-by-round effectiveness. On average, the person using a limited-use ability should be more effective than the person using an at-will ability, assuming both of those abilities are broadly useful.
If I were to look at things holistically, I would say that my "ideal" caster classes would have a fixed number of spell slots that doesn't change much or at all with level, a relatively limited number of spells per day, spells that are individually very potent, and a reasonable selection of at-will abilities that allow the caster to contribute meaningfully without casting spells, but at a more modest power level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Midnight, I feel like you are completely missing my points, and I'm not sure how to restate them in a way you will grok.
"Janky" is valid feedback, though. "This feels gamist and awkward, and people will rail against it in play" would be a more written out version of the same feedback.
See for example Barbarian rage.
I wonder if you could solve the "Nova" problem with a simple cool-down mechanic - once a spell is cast, you can't cast anything above a cantrip until a number a rounds has passed equal to the level of the spell (ex. Cast a 3rd level spell, and you can't cast anything but cantrips for the next 3 rounds). This is just off the top of my head, so I'm not sure how it would actually work at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cooldown mechanic is likely to get a lot of blowback as I mentioned above.
And "rounds per spell level" is way overkill - that effectively means you get one spell per combat.
I would much prefer what I would call a "soft" solution to a problem like this. Instead of flat out saying "you have to play the game this way", set up the game mechanics such that people are encouraged to play a certain way and disincentivized to play it another way. It's more elegant, and you get less backlash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the reasons Witch is one of my favorite 1e casters - witches have lots of great things to do with hexes when they are not casting spells, and as a result I never felt bad when I went a few turns without casting. I think Focus powers can do a lot here, too; I hope every caster has decent Focus powers, including ideally some at-will abilities.
Mine too. I built my witch in a specific way (evil eye + cackle) and I love it. I'm not a completely one-trick-pony, but that certain things (like spells) don't have a strong impact any more because my save DC is so low...because it wasn't important. "Oh, you saved against evil eye? Sucks to be you because you're still taking those penalties forever."
I do still attempt spells now and again, but it's in the situation where my hexes aren't going to work, but if the spell DOES go off successfully, it'll be great (but if not, oh well: evil eye wasn't going to do me any good any way).
That said, no spell caster works like this in the play test and its very likely that the witch will get Powers that consume spell points and no longer be that minor effect power house. (This is not to say that she's overpowered currently, but that the effects are visible, they are fun to use, and the "daily limit" effect isn't in place in the same way).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I do something that's suboptimal and boring, I'll last longer? I mean I usually play magic-martials, but if I want to play the casting-caster it's not because I want to cast cantrips all day long.Let's take a look at this from a game design perspective:
1) Spells are limited in uses per day, while most martial abilities are not.
2) Given that, spells need to be more powerful than typical martial abilities to justify their limited uses
3) However, this dynamic then causes what I'll call "the Nova Problem". The Nova Problem is this: If a caster has enough spells to cast a spell every round of combat, then for that combat everything they do is more powerful than the martial characters. If the caster has enough spells that they don't have to worry about running out until the party rests, then they are effectively more powerful than the martial characters all the time.
4) The Nova Problem really only has two solutions: Either spells must not be meaningfully more powerful than martial abilities, or casters must have few enough spells per day that they have to not use spells on some rounds, so that there are rounds of combat in which the martials are more effective than the caster to balance out the rounds in which the reverse is true.
PF2e seems to be heading in the direction of the second solution, because they would like to keep spells more powerful than martial abilities.
I don't disagree with your analysis, but the thing we were discussing was that casters last longer in PF2, and the answer to my NO was : "yes, they do, they can do this boring and suboptimal thing all day long instead of casting a spell whole fight/every fight." So it's still a: "no, casters don't last longer in PF2".
Has consideration been given to increasing casting times? Kind of like a reverse cooldown effect...
See: How Not to Summon a Demon Lord, episode 3.
"He's using that skill? It has a long change time. Sure, it hits hard, but at close range? Its like he's a noob..." Diablo walks up and punches the guy in face.
That is:
In a turn based game, being able to pull a spell like that off is NEVER going to work. NEVER. Combat rarely takes place in an arena large enough to require more than 2 move actions to reach any point from any other point. Having to stand still for four actions is suicide.
Midnight, I feel like you are completely missing my points, and I'm not sure how to restate them in a way you will grok.
"Janky" is valid feedback, though. "This feels gamist and awkward, and people will rail against it in play" would be a more written out version of the same feedback.
See for example Barbarian rage.
How is it any more gamist than 99% of the other mechanics in the game around spellcasting?
Spell slots are gamist by the same definition.
As are pools of any kind (ki, magus, or anything a like).
It would be "gamist" if it were a dictation that occurred through every instance in the game.
It only occurs when a spellcaster attempts to "nova" and the magic becomes overwhelming on the body (plenty of fantasy literature and media to support this btw, not at all founded on just instituting an arbitrary limitation).
Your argument that it's "janky" and "gamist" is unfounded in my opinion. You can just say you don't like it if you like, but to say it's "gamist" or "gamey" in the same vein as say the arbitrary distinctions between "exploration mode" and "combat mode" is just not fair in the slightest.
If there were no fundamental examples of "magical overload" in literature (where magic takes a toll on the body/mind) then sure I'd say maybe you have a point, but not only does it exist but it's common ("Magic has a price" is literally a common trope).
To each their own, it's unlikely to happen anyways, but I think your assessment is unfair.
Setting a 1 minute limit to something like twice your level, that is a soft limit that has an easy DC to beat means that first level casters would basically be able to practically cast their entire playtest allotment for the day in every encounter. You might start to encounter some limitation at really high levels, but by excluding a certain spell for each class just really turns it into a non-limiter since they can always preform that peak performance anytime, as often as they want.
Any cleric with healing ability would be able to probably heal an army of 100 people back up to full in less than an hour time easily as much as they want. This flat out, shouldn't be possible, save for maybe a 20th level legendary healing cleric of a healing god.
Spells like mage armor would likely need to be changed from having an 8 hour timer to where it has to be reset every so often, since it can just be recast as often as you like. Oh, yeh... by the way, the army's mage casts mage armor on every member of the army as they march out in the morning. It costs less that them actually carrying armor, and is a lot less encumbering. Half-way through the day he can run through and cast it again to make sure it doesn't run out before nightfall. He can even cast it a third time just before bed on anyone who is going to be having a night watch to cover them.
@Midnightoker As far as I can see it feels to me that the limits you proposed, don't even really feel like viable limits to me. Why bother casting cantrips when it would be impossible to hit your limit casting first and second level spells each round in combat? That would mean the higher spell levels can't have much more damage potential to them than cantrips do now?
@Bluescale the cooldown seems impractical, given how quickly combats can sometimes be resolved. However, the aspect of having a 'charge' value that goes up with each spell cast by the spell level (other than cantrips) if you can't cast another spell other than a cantrip if that value is greater than your level, and the level ath the end of a round where a caster has not cast a non-cantrip/leveled spell from their own energies, it would act as a sort of cooling factor for someone.
I.e. you have a 7th level caster, who casts a 4th level spell, their charge value jumps to 4. Since 4 is less than 7, they decide to cast another spell. They cast their other 4th level spell. This brings their charge up to 8. At the end of their second turn their charge is 8, as it is at the beginning of their next turn. Because 8 is higher than 7, they can't cast another leveled spell, but could cast a cantrip. The next turn, they would be down to 7 and so they might be allowed then to cast another spell.
Alternately, when looking at the charge values, the rules could be such that you can never force your charge higher than your spellcasting level, meaning the second spell in the above example would have had to have been limited to a 3rd level spell or lower.
Again, without consideration for spells that are balanced to be cast a limited number of times a day, the cooldown effect sill has an issue with allowing people to cast spells that change things narratively too much.
Saying you aren't going to mitigate the ramification of spells becoming near-at-will is crazy. Look at Shield, due to it being at-will they had to institute a cooldown for recasting it after a certain use of it. Not acknowledge spells needing such tweaking and probably method of dealing with it, seems like it would create a significantly flawed system.
@Draco18s + @MaxAstro I loved Witch hexes as well as a specific magical ability that wasn't as daily limited as spells were. I'll admit although I liked the once per day per person limitation on the healing hex, I have to admit, it occurred to me with hexes, the implications of a witch being able to help heal an army was a pretty big narrative implication. Why wouldn't a good witch heal just about anyone and everyone they came across. Why wouldn't every army have a healing witch employed to help their troops, or a team of ten of them so you get 10 CLW heals each soldier each day? So the potential narrative problem isn't brand new, it cropped up in some cases already where things that used to be spells, were turned into specialized near-at-will powers. But they limited things some, when they did it and only did it with specific abilities. Heal, Slumber(sleep), etc.
I don't disagree with your analysis, but the thing we were discussing was that casters last longer in PF2, and the answer to my NO was : "yes, they do, they can do this boring and suboptimal thing all day long instead of casting a spell whole fight/every fight." So it's still a: "no, casters don't last longer in PF2".
You are missing what is being said, I think. Here is it, explicitly:
In PF1e, a caster's total combat rounds end to end (and abridged) probably looked something like
Spell, spell, spell, spell, spell, spell, out of spells, rest
In the playtest, an effectively played caster's combat rounds end to end probably look something like
Spell, cantrip, cantrip, spell, cantrip, cantrip, spell, cantrip cantrip, spell, out of spells, rest.
So despite having fewer spells, they often last for more combat rounds because cantrips are good enough that they don't always need to use a spell. Why waste a spell if you can pick off a weakened foe with an acid splash, or if you are fighting a clay golem and your ray of frost will do just as much damage as your best spells?
No one is suggesting "casters should just use cantrips after they run out of spells to avoid resting". Rather the suggestion is "interspersing cantrips with spells adds longevity to the caster's day".
I in fact even said that if you play casters like PF1e casters, yes they run out faster. If you adapt your playstyle to the new system then they last longer.
And for the reasons I gave above, casters cannot be allowed to have a day that looks like the PF1e day, or they will always overpower martials.
@Midnightoker As far as I can see it feels to me that the limits you proposed, don't even really feel like viable limits to me. Why bother casting cantrips when it would be impossible to hit your limit casting first and second level spells each round in combat? That would mean the higher spell levels can't have much more damage potential to them than cantrips do now?
I'd love to hear how a 1st level Wizard plans to beat a DC 16 caster level check in a game with no boosts to Caster Level better than 25% of the time.
Even in the case of a 20th level caster (who should be able to overload at least once) that's still a DC 25 (20% chance of failure) where they would lose a 10th level spell slot.
Obviously it could be scaled like old caster level checks (15 + 2xspell level + overload tier) which would be far more formidable for higher level spells. In which case, it is no longer arbitrary even for 20th level casters (who now have to roll a DC 35+ overload tier check just to succeed on the cast for a 10th spell past their cap).
The check isn't arbitrary in the slightest, and as I mentioned in the original post of how it could work, it was off the cuff and rough.
If you want a full blown mechanic fully typed out and integrated for your use (and not just to criticize theoretical usage) I'd be happy to do so.
I digress.
Nova-ing is going to be solely up to the GM to resolve if the state of slots and cantrips stays the same, as neither relieves the issue of someone deciding to blow their lot of slots on a single enemy in favor of an early rest.
I've never had a problem with Nova-ing at my table, but I found the mechanic could be interesting as well as serving a purpose in game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell, cantrip, cantrip, spell, cantrip, cantrip, spell, cantrip cantrip, spell, out of spells, rest.
You say that but as the thread has discussed:
- Cantrips are worse than spells, so a Spell would be better to cast (and the game is designed as such for martial caster disparity)
- There is no penalty for spending all your spells and asking your party to rest unless the GM enforces one.
So quite literally, nothing has been done about Nova at all, other than offering casters an option to use a cantrip instead.
However, the ones spending all their spells in the first place, are still in a place where they can continue to do that.
A paper tiger isn't going to stop someone in this case, and if the goal of cantrips was to create such a scenario, I don't see how it succeeded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paper tigers are actually incredibly effective in game design. See for example WoW's fatigue penalty vs rested bonus. Perception of a mechanic is critical.
More to the point, though:
In a situation where the caster is 100% certain they can rest after this fight, blowing their entire load always makes sense, no question.
In a situation where the caster is anything less than 100% certain, and has useful at-will abilities, conserving spells in favor of at-will abilities when possible is optimal. If an enemy has 5hp left, using a Fireball to kill them instead of a Ray of Frost is a bad call. Any ability you can win this fight without using is an ability you have available in the next fight.
The problem in 1e was that casters did not have viable at-will abilities. And it is possible that cantrips are still a little too weak in the playtest. But as I mentioned above with my experiences with witch (and trust me, I am someone who struggles to not play optimal all the time even when I shouldn't), giving casters useful and effective at-will abilities enables them to conserve their more powerful spells and last longer without resting.
The problem in 1e was that casters did not have viable at-will abilities. And it is possible that cantrips are still a little too weak in the playtest. But as I mentioned above with my experiences with witch (and trust me, I am someone who struggles to not play optimal all the time even when I shouldn't), giving casters useful and effective at-will abilities enables them to conserve their more powerful spells and last longer without resting.
Precisely. I mean heck, 5e cantrips sure are worse than leveled spells, but they ABSOLUTELY get cast on a regular basis in the games I've played in, and nobody I've encountered is arguing that 5e casters aren't powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paper tigers are actually incredibly effective in game design. See for example WoW's fatigue penalty vs rested bonus. Perception of a mechanic is critical.
A paper tiger in whatever way you want to define, is still at the end of the day, a paper tiger (a fake threat). When I called this a paper tiger what I should have said was "non existant tiger" as the proposal I gave is closer to a paper tiger than what is currently available (or a cardboard tiger, if you will).
In a situation where the caster is 100% certain they can rest after this fight, blowing their entire load always makes sense, no question.
This mechanic does not prevent that, it only enforces it. You can still blow your load, it just comes with the caveat of doing so makes it extremely difficult to carry on after the current encounter (much like being exhausted or fatigued).
In a situation where the caster is anything less than 100% certain, and has useful at-will abilities, conserving spells in favor of at-will abilities when possible is optimal.
Not unless the GM enforces a no-rest scenario. In which case blowing your slots is always optimal, by definition.
The problem in 1e was that casters did not have viable at-will abilities.
The problem in 1E was there were more spell slots than you could spend in a full day past level 5, which has been reduced considerably in 2E.
In place of that Cantrips were provided, which provide support for not using spell slots, but do not fully supplement their necessity in a fight (going into a fight with only cantrips is the equivalent of going in with only 1st level spell slots in 1E or something comparable to current level).
Witches were one of the strongest classes in the entire game, so making an argument for Cantrips as if they equate in any way to Hexes is a false equivalence. Hexes were vastly more powerful than current cantrips and were a major mechanic.
I find it ironic how you are nay saying an ability that prevents too many castings while propping up Hexes, when Hexes had a very specific limit of "once per day per target" attached to nearly all of them.
Can you honestly say that's not "gamist"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, Midnight, the honest truth is I haven't been talking about your suggestion for a couple posts now; necromental got me talking about casters as they are in the Playtest and that's been my focus.
And while you are right that hexes are stronger than cantrips, I did say "maybe cantrips need to be stronger".
There is also room between "GM enforces no-rest" and "the party rests after every fight". In fact, most parties in my experience don't want to rest after every fight. They would prefer to keep the game moving and get stuff done. The social pressure from the martials who don't need to rest is something you shouldn't discount. Or even the other casters. I've had games where one person was nova'ing every time while the other casters would conserve their spells, and eventually the nova caster got told "dude, we're not resting just for you, deal with it."
I'm sorry, Midnight, the honest truth is I haven't been talking about your suggestion for a couple posts now; necromental got me talking about casters as they are in the Playtest and that's been my focus.
Fair enough.
And while you are right that hexes are stronger than cantrips, I did say "maybe cantrips need to be stronger".
Potentially but it then makes the competition between spell and cantrip a bit heavy. Depends on what role cantrips fill I suppose, but it borders on making martials obsolete if the Cantrip starts to out pace the ability for a martial to compete.
Thus the delicate balance.
To me leaving Cantrips as is, allowing more spell slots for actual spells, but restricting successive use allows the "all day" and "limited resources" difference between martials and caster to flourish, as opposed to delicately attempting to balance on a hair.
There is also room between "GM enforces no-rest" and "the party rests after every fight". In fact, most parties in my experience don't want to rest after every fight. They would prefer to keep the game moving and get stuff done. The social pressure from the martials who don't need to rest is something you shouldn't discount. Or even the other casters. I've had games where one person was nova'ing every time while the other casters would conserve their spells, and eventually the nova caster got told "dude, we're not resting just for you, deal with it."
I do agree, this is usually the case.
However, there is social pressure to not munchkin as well.
But in the case of munchkin behaviors (such as pun pun the kobold) that is usually a break down in the rules that allows it to happen.
The GM is then in charge of cleaning up the mess so the game can continue, and while in general it is their job to run the game, that part of the job is certainly not fun (for anyone).
I am almost always in favor of anything that allows the GM to focus on the parts that are fun, like NPCs, adventure, and story, because the job is so much work as is.
So while I agree, to me anything that requires social pressure to "work" is something the rules should be handling. After all we play this with friends, and the friend in this case is just playing "optimal" (albeit not realistically optimal for other party members).
That said, I'll drop the issue. But Cantrips have done little to nothing to resolve the Nova problem outside of providing a band-aid.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the problems with the spellcasting system in PF, is that the caster in the party always has the ability to fire everything off in the first fight of the day and then demand a rest.
Now to be fair, this will never happen and any caster that did this would be mocked furiously, but it's still an option there.
The real trick is, there's no real cost associated with spending your entire power balance early and then taking a rest, because if you rest at the end of the day and have spells available, they're "wasted," but if you're cleaned out then you feel good about your contribution.
Getting a good pace going can be really difficult for a player who's new to spellcasting, and it's a struggle that affects everyone, not just them. some players just don't like trying to handle that responsibility.
I think if a newer spellcasting system offered some rules for casters pacing themselves, it would go a long way to establishing mechanical balance without threatening their power structure.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So while I agree, to me anything that requires social pressure to "work" is something the rules should be handling. After all we play this with friends, and the friend in this case is just playing "optimal" (albeit not realistically optimal for other party members).
I think it's unrealistic to think the rules can handle every intricacy; on top of that, this is a social game, and like all social games, the social dynamics are part of the game. Using the rules to influence the social dynamic is entirely fair play, and to my mind more elegant than trying to use the rules to enforce the social dynamic.
But that's just, like, my opinion, man. :)
@Midnightoker As far as I can see it feels to me that the limits you proposed, don't even really feel like viable limits to me. Why bother casting cantrips when it would be impossible to hit your limit casting first and second level spells each round in combat? That would mean the higher spell levels can't have much more damage potential to them than cantrips do now?I'd love to hear how a 1st level Wizard plans to beat a DC 16 caster level check in a game with no boosts to Caster Level better than 25% of the time.
Even in the case of a 20th level caster (who should be able to overload at least once) that's still a DC 25 (20% chance of failure) where they would lose a 10th level spell slot.
Obviously it could be scaled like old caster level checks (15 + 2xspell level + overload tier) which would be far more formidable for higher level spells. In which case, it is no longer arbitrary even for 20th level casters (who now have to roll a DC 35+ overload tier check just to succeed on the cast for a 10th spell past their cap).
The check isn't arbitrary in the slightest, and as I mentioned in the original post of how it could work, it was off the cuff and rough.
....
Sorry, I was imagining a spellcasting check, so if you are saying more like a flat check with a level modifier etc. that might be different. But I was thinking DC15 and they were rolling a D20, adding their level, and adding the Arcana for +2 per rank, and adding +4 or more for their Int bonus.
Then, also since you aren't tracking slots, losing the spell is just a wasted action, and I was feeling like there was an implication that cantrip was being considered a wasted action, but I think I may have misread that into the stance, where it wasn't really entirely there.
I still feel like the leveled spells as written are not meant to be things that can be cast hundreds of times a day. Some it might not matter that much, especially with a tweak or two, but others just don't seem right to me.
Again, as I said, I even had a bit of a problem with the narrative implications of Hexs, most specifically the healing Hex, even with the limitation it put on itself. In Pathfinder 1, I don't really feel a witch should be able to heal 100 different people, as a general rule. The ramifications of that is too significant. Might I allow it on the convergence of two planets and the new moon, because it serves to plot line, allowing the witch to heal everyone in the village. Sure, I could go for that, perhaps, but I would cringe if it became something they simply expected to be able to do all the time.
A Spellcaster won't always have a spell available to use in an encounter. (either out, or not one that is fitting) This is not unlike a martial character may not always be able to produce a decent preferred DPS either. A melee fighter simply won't be getting their desired damage, if they are stuck on the ground fighting something in the air they can't reach. Saying you can't have the spellcaster be stuck, not casting a spell so they aren't feeling a part, could be pushed to say you also need to make it so the Melee fighter needs to be able to swing and hit their flying opponent with their melee sword, giving them their expected damage potential, despite being 50 feet lower than their opponent.
I'm not saying I can't understand the idea of having more short term limitations on magic, than daily slots. If you get rid of Vancian, it makes sense. In a way it makes more sense than Vancian. But it also would mean spells themselves would need to be completely change to be more situational, more short term based, and fewer permanent effects, or have permanent effects be constrained some other way, such as perhaps using components that cost more significant resources.
A weak healer shouldn't be able to spam micro-healing spells in my opinion to heal a the party or town back up to full. If you allow them to cast more heal spells, I'd be looking for that one use of that spell effect per caster per target per day, or something like that (although that still gives you issue I have with the P1 witch) or have the healing require 5sp of magical components for each casting. Or maybe require use of such components to allow the spell to stack with prior castings of the spell that day, potentially the more castings used, the more components would be needed for each casting.
But again, this a big shift from the design that at least I see spells at the moment as 'artillery' shells loaded into the cart. If you want spells to be more like tools in the tool belt, they need to be weaker than they are, shorter term, and designed with respect to the balance of being cast multiple times.
Actually, maybe you could have relatively powerful spells actually be more Vancian, and have them chew up your 'level' limit, but also have a chance at every casting, of being forgotten/lost from your current spells prepared. Healing could be something like this. You can heal, and keep healing, but each time you do it, you increase the chance you 'lose' the pattern of the spell from your mind. I guess you'd make some sort of check to try to remember it, using your current spellcasting load as a modifier to the DC. So lets say the Heal spells or Fireball or Lighting Bolt are considered Fragile spells. Any time you cast it, you have to make a spellcasting check against a given DC modified by the level of spell levels you've cast in the last minute. If you aren't overloaded (over the limit) if you fail the check, you successfully cast the spell, but lose the memorization of it. If you are overloaded, you fail to cast the spell, if you fail, or if you critically failed, you also lose the memorization of the spell for the day.
Fragile spells would generally be things creating permanent things, effects, with the exception of course of cantrips and likely single target damage spells that do relatively normal damage that can be readily healed.
Again, though, this doesn't really stop the people choosing to go nova. However, it does make keeping the spell levels cast in a minute down so they are less likely to lose the spells they have, and presumably want.
I'm not sure how to handle Sorcerers then, however, as they wouldn't lose memorization, I wouldn't think. I guess they could lose access to the spell for the day, but that hurts their supposed ability to recast the same spells over and over. Maybe Sorcerers in exchange for having a set spells known, have an ability to override X spell fractures, where X is the caster level. This way they could cast fragile spells and 'lose' them a certain number of times and still be able to cast them through the rest of the day. This would make them more resilient through the day, but less flexible. That might be reasonable.
This is one of the reasons Witch is one of my favorite 1e casters - witches have lots of great things to do with hexes when they are not casting spells, and as a result I never felt bad when I went a few turns without casting. I think Focus powers can do a lot here, too; I hope every caster has decent Focus powers, including ideally some at-will abilities.
???
I don't follow. Don't Focus powers still cost resources (furthermore, resources out of a very small pool that are also meant to cover your magic item uses)? How does switching from one kind of resource-costing activity (spells costing spell slots) to a different resource-costing activity (focus powers costing focus points) make a difference (or at least, besides what would be gained by just adding more spell slots)?
The cantrips I get. There's a certain kind of breathing room that exists when you're using an at-will ability. And I get the Witch parallel since a good number of hexes were inexhaustible. But not Focus powers.
This is one of the reasons Witch is one of my favorite 1e casters - witches have lots of great things to do with hexes when they are not casting spells, and as a result I never felt bad when I went a few turns without casting. I think Focus powers can do a lot here, too; I hope every caster has decent Focus powers, including ideally some at-will abilities.???
I don't follow. Don't Focus powers still cost resources (furthermore, resources out of a very small pool that are also meant to cover your magic item uses)? How does switching from one kind of resource-costing activity (spells costing spell slots) to a different resource-costing activity (focus powers costing focus points) make a difference (or at least, besides what would be gained by just adding more spell slots)?
The cantrips I get. There's a certain kind of breathing room that exists when you're using an at-will ability. And I get the Witch parallel since a good number of hexes were inexhaustible. But not Focus powers.
I think he meant that if you got 2 different limited resources is a lot better than 1 limited resource.
But i can see that, the problem i see with spells it's that you get only 2-3 of the highest level(Sorcerers being an exception and wizards cheating that a bit with focus). While powers mean you can cast your power 4-5 times at the highest level.
Just looking at the "Nova Problem"/"Magical Overload", and considering a mechanic to encourage the weaving of spells and cantrips/martial.
Nova Points (working titles are good things)
You have max NP's equal to your level.
Every spell cast subtracts NP's based on the spell level. (Optionally excluding certain class features as others have mentioned)
Negative NP's subtract from your Spell Hit/Spell DC's.
You regain 1 NP per round. (Optionally non cantrip spells do not allow you to regen for that round)
Now whilst this is a nerf to spellcasters, it does open up the idea of allowing casters a method of regaining slots during a day, like maybe 1 lvl/hour of non strenuous activity.
You could also just give them some more slots back or give them reductions on certain spells as part of progression (maybe after you have 4th level spells for instance, 1st level spells don't count towards the cap).
But it does open their space back up to be more utility (more options to choose from) but not able to out pace martials.
As long as martial skill feats are on par to make up the narrative piece OOC spells provide, it would open up distinct differences with unique positions of power that don't overlap as much.
I do think level as the cap is a bit restrictive but if the check was more laxed that wouldn't matter as much. It depends on how often you want overload to trigger.
To me this mechanic should only come into play during the BBEG or a moment a player felt they had little options but to attempt, but rewarding when it's a success. But I could definitely see a take that makes magic even more volatile (not as negative to overload but triggers more often).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I do something that's suboptimal and boring, I'll last longer? I mean I usually play magic-martials, but if I want to play the casting-caster it's not because I want to cast cantrips all day long.
Spells are good enough that casting one every round gets broken quick. But cantrips are not suboptimal (indeed, blowing all your spells on targets not worthy of them is, itself, suboptimal), and are not necessarily boring. Many have interesting rider effects of one sort or another, after all. They certainly aren't any more boring than attacking with a sword every round.
But yes, you need to not blow actual spells every round when fighting easy foes. That's pretty much been true in every edition of D&D and Pathfinder to date, though. It's just somewhat more true in this edition.
In a worldbuilding PoV, even the measly Produce Flame is an ability I'd covet anytime, as a power that lets me torch stuff without spending material fuel is so useful, especially in scenarios like extreme survival.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the reasons Witch is one of my favorite 1e casters - witches have lots of great things to do with hexes when they are not casting spells, and as a result I never felt bad when I went a few turns without casting. I think Focus powers can do a lot here, too; I hope every caster has decent Focus powers, including ideally some at-will abilities.???
I don't follow. Don't Focus powers still cost resources (furthermore, resources out of a very small pool that are also meant to cover your magic item uses)? How does switching from one kind of resource-costing activity (spells costing spell slots) to a different resource-costing activity (focus powers costing focus points) make a difference (or at least, besides what would be gained by just adding more spell slots)?
The cantrips I get. There's a certain kind of breathing room that exists when you're using an at-will ability. And I get the Witch parallel since a good number of hexes were inexhaustible. But not Focus powers.
We didn't specifically see any examples that I can think of, but if you considered that Grit was one example of a Focus-like Point system, we found in first edition. There were conditional 'powers/abilities that didn't cost a point to use, but they did require that you still had one available. There might be design space for that sort of ability in second edition.
Another potential would be something you had to have a Focus point to pay for, but you might be allowed some sort of 'roll' which if you succeed, it doesn't consume your Focus point. This would be a little like Quick Mount action, which required an action to be able to mount, but if you made your Ride check against a quick mount DC, you got to preform your mount as a free action instead of a move. If you failed, you had to complete the move action, and it cost the move action.
So Hexes could exist as a separate at-will ability mechanic, or it might be tied to Focus, but might have a mechanism to allow it to be used more often.
Even Cantrips technically have certain costs to their casters. They cost the time to cast them, and they also cost the daily resource of preparing them (or for the sorcerer the even more permanent picking it for their repertoire).
I do think level as the cap is a bit restrictive but if the check was more laxed that wouldn't matter as much. It depends on how often you want overload to trigger.Here's a tweak, non cantrip spells stopping the regen for that round, but the regen being based on casting stat (minimum 1).
So you end up with 4-6 NP per round, so if you didn't want to take any negatives (you'd end up with:
Spell, Spell, Cantrip, Spell, Cantrip, Spell, Cantrip.
Because two highest level spells before 0/-1, and honestly a -1 on a cantrip, you're not going to be too concerned about.
Which (probably arbitrarily) feels better than:
Spell, Spell, Spell, Spell, Cantrip, Cantrip, Cantrip.
I suppose encouraging breaking up the casts is good, but in general I like simpler solutions than what's described. Especially when adding a new rule that wasn't present at all in the prior edition.